Major breakthroughs usually made by older, not younger, scientists (Article)

Perhaps the world has long had the perception that the major scientific breakthroughs of history (as in physics, chemistry, medicine) have been routinely made by brilliant young scientists, typically at the start of their careers. Einstein might be typical of this perception, with his most important work coming around age 26.

But the article in the link immediately below makes the case that, while there may have been some truth to this perception if one looks only at the early twentieth century, review of the research careers of accomplished scientist in the years after that period, the careers of Nobel Prize winners in particular, reveals that it is the older scientists who have dominated in making major discoveries since then.

researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nobelage.htm

From the article:

"Scientists under the age of 40 used to make the majority of significant breakthroughs in chemistry, physics and medicine, but that is no longer the case, new research suggests."

"Results showed that before 1905, about two-thirds of winners in all three fields did their prize-winning work before age 40, and about 20 percent did it before age 30 … but by 2000, great achievements before age 30 nearly never occurred in any of the three fields."

The article goes into detail on theories as to why. For example, it is suggested that young scientists coming into physics in the early twentieth century, when Relativity was taking hold, more easily accepted it, while many of their older contemporaries did not, still "stuck" in Newtonian physics.

The mention of medicine in the above article did make me wonder if this was also really true of medical research, as the first article claimed, that the major advances in medical research for the past century or so, including cancer research, were also being made by older researchers.

Well, according to the article linked below, it's true in medical research as well. (The article itself is a bit long, but reading the abstract of it makes this point):

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029738

From this second article:

"In the past 30 years, the average age of biomedical researchers has steadily increased. The average age of an investigator at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) rose from 39 to 51 between 1980 and 2008."

"Furthermore, 78% of the Nobel Prize winners conducted their research before the age of 51"

So it seems it isn't always the Wunderkind any more who makes the breakthroughs, and there is something to be said after all for the experienced greybeard who is the one coming through with the big find.

That does make sense, lapilot. The senior (usually older) members of a department (university, hospital, lab, etc.) are usually the ones with the most "pull." Those with the most "pull" usually get first crack at the research funds. Then those with the funds go and do the research that makes the discoveries that get them famous. That's a pretty common pattern.

Makes me wonder about a curious but possible (and probably common) situation, though. That of the brilliant but unfunded researcher (in any field) who will be able to do marvelous research IF he can just get that first funding break that will enable the great research he will do that will then "launch" his career. Not unlike the young, unknown actor who just needs that one "break" to get his movie career going.